search for: patchsets

This is netback multithread support patchset version 4. Main Changes from v3: 1. Patchset is against xen/next tree. 2. Merge group and idx into netif->mapping. 3. Use vmalloc to allocate netbk structures. Main Changes from v2: 1. Merge "group" and "idx" into "netif->mapping", therefore page_ext is not used now. 2. Put netbk_add_netif() and netbk_remove_netif()

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:15 PM, Ady via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > > > The MultiFS syntax is basically "(hdX,Y)/path/to/file", where X is disk > > number and Y is partition number. > > > > Thank you. > > As a reminder, please note: > > _ There was a syntax discussion about "multifs", so additional syntax > forms

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 04:00:45PM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: > Minor changes based on feedback and rebase from v10. > > Splitting the previous serie in two. This part contains assembly code > changes required for PIE but without any direct dependencies with the > rest of the patchset. > > Note: Using objtool to detect non-compliant PIE relocations is not yet > possible

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 04:00:45PM -0800, Thomas Garnier wrote: > Minor changes based on feedback and rebase from v10. > > Splitting the previous serie in two. This part contains assembly code > changes required for PIE but without any direct dependencies with the > rest of the patchset. > > Note: Using objtool to detect non-compliant PIE relocations is not yet > possible

On 3/20/23 9:06 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > The following patches were made over Linus tree. Hi Michael, I see you merged my first version of the patchset in your vhost branch. Do you want me to just send a followup patchset? The major diff between the 2 versions: 1. I added the first 2 patches which fix some bugs in the existing code I found while doing some code review and testing another

As some people have requested, here is klibc as a historyless patchset against 2.6.17. The patchset consists of two parts: changes to the main kernel code taken straight from the git history (as it is rather few patches), and additions, grouped by rough divisions. The majority of the patches are independent in the sense that they should apply independently, but Makefile/Kbuild files may have to

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote: >>> >> My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally >> improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should not* be >> a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really

What is "migrate to the latest patchset version" even supposed to mean? I don't think that belongs into a kernel commit description.

I've recently been contacted by an (unnamed) NAS vendor who has seen some problems with Vista clients against 3.0.23d. This has been reported by customers so it's a very important issue for them. As we care greatly about our OEM's I'm proposing that we create a "Vista patchset" of source-code patches that vendors and OEMs can apply to their 3.0.23d based products based

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 04:15:15PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote: > At the moment, if a virtio network device uses vrings with less than > MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 2 entries, the device won't be functional. > > The following condition vq->num_free >= 2 + MAX_SKB_FRAGS will always > evaluate to false, leading to TX timeouts. > > This patchset attempts this fix this bug, and to

Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic >failover infrastructure. > >Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com> In previous patchset versions, the common code did netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc (netvsc_vf_join()). Now,

Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: >Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic >failover infrastructure. > >Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala at intel.com> In previous patchset versions, the common code did netdev_rx_handler_register() and netdev_upper_dev_link() etc (netvsc_vf_join()). Now,

> On 07/23/2015 02:09 PM, Raphael S Carvalho via Syslinux wrote: > >> > > My sincere opinion is to apply this patchset as-is, and incrementally > > improve multifs. Lack of alternatives (additional features) *should not* be > > a reason to block this patchset. Again, I really think that this patchset > > should be applied unless a technical reason, e.g. some

Hi Keir The latest (hybrid) patchset again... Change from v4: 1. Add support for PV clocksource on HVM. (Replace evtchn enabling with pv clock enabling). 2. Update the patch following Tim''s comments. Change from v3: 1. Minor polish the patchset. Replace several specific is_hvm_pv_evtchn_domain() judgement. 2. Name changed... Change from v2: 1. Change the name "hybrid"

On Wed, 06 May 2015 14:07:37 +0200 Greg Kurz <gkurz at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Unlike with add and clear, there is no valid reason to abort when checking > for a feature. It makes more sense to return false (i.e. the feature bit > isn't set). This is exactly what __virtio_has_feature() does if fbit >= 32. > > This allows to introduce code that is aware about new

On Wed, 06 May 2015 14:07:37 +0200 Greg Kurz <gkurz at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Unlike with add and clear, there is no valid reason to abort when checking > for a feature. It makes more sense to return false (i.e. the feature bit > isn't set). This is exactly what __virtio_has_feature() does if fbit >= 32. > > This allows to introduce code that is aware about new

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us wrote: > >Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: > >>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > >>failover infrastructure. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:06:37AM CEST, jiri at resnulli.us wrote: > >Tue, May 22, 2018 at 04:06:18AM CEST, sridhar.samudrala at intel.com wrote: > >>Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic > >>failover infrastructure. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala

Minor changes based on feedback and rebase from v9. Splitting the previous serie in two. This part contains assembly code changes required for PIE but without any direct dependencies with the rest of the patchset. Changes: - patch v10 (assembly): - Swap rax for rdx on entry/64 changes based on feedback. - Addressed feedback from Borislav Petkov on boot, paravirt, alternatives and

Minor changes based on feedback and rebase from v9. Splitting the previous serie in two. This part contains assembly code changes required for PIE but without any direct dependencies with the rest of the patchset. Changes: - patch v10 (assembly): - Swap rax for rdx on entry/64 changes based on feedback. - Addressed feedback from Borislav Petkov on boot, paravirt, alternatives and